Sunday, July 01, 2007

Britain Should Invade Says Zimbabwe Cleric

The Sunday Times reports that the Archbishop of Bulawayo wants Britain to invade Zimbabwe to rescue it from its misery. The fact of the matter is that our armed forces are already in a state of 'overstretch'and it would be impossible for us to do even if we wanted to. But Zimbabwe is close to becoming a failed state. The UN has sat on its hands and done nothing. I've said this before and I will say it again. It is up to African nations to take action and South Africa should be taking the lead.


simon said...

A thousand 'No's'! No more meddling in third world countries thank you very much! It's an 'African' problem- the Africans should deal with it. Alan Clark's ascerbic comment about Africa still has resonance today.

Theo Spark said...

What are we waiting for. Oh yes the Government to develop testicles.

ranter said...

Another cracking thought from a cleric! I hear that some home grown Christian Clerics believe the floods are a message from God and the Planet. WHich is it? Even they get confused. Stick to the mumbo jumbo and leave the rest to people who live in the real world (that excludes Zimbabwe of course)

Marquee Mark said...

I'm a fan of what Nelson Mandela has achieved in South Africa, but his decision (and that of the whole ANC leadership) to rally round rather than condemn the activities of Mugabe's Zimbabwe will be a blight on his legacy. It needs Mandela to say that, though he was a fellow freedom-fighter, Mugabe has failed to deliver an acceptable society out of that struggle - and it is time to retire and let the younger Zimbabweans find a more inclusive way to live. That would rob Mugabe of his shield of black fellowship that has sustained him.

Anonymous said...

South Africa should be taking the lead

well, the last time anyone tried to orchestrate regime change in a failed central african dictatorship, the south africans tried to arrest the lot and were instrumental in getting some of them tortured. So don't hold your breath.

Chris said...

Never mind overstretch, it just ain't militarily do-able without South African co-operation. Zimbabwe is landlocked. Where are you going to put staff HQ and? How are you going get the troops in - parachute drop, and resupply the same way? That worked at Dien Bien Phu! Assassination of Mugabe is the way to go. We could and should help with that.

Anonymous said...

Its about time we got back in our box, left Iraq, left Afghanistan and concentrated on putting our own house in order.

Running round the world telling people how to run their countries has been an unmitigated failure. The hypocrisy displayed by Bliar has ruined our international reputation to the level of ridicule.

Religious nutters should keep their idiotic views to themselves.

forthurst said...

I posted this re Rwanda because it is about Africa from a Zimbabwwan perspective, so I will repost, which having been written by an African, is well worth reading:-

Anonymous said...

Chris is right - without basing and overflight rights in neighbouring countries, there's nothing we can do. And as we have such small armed forces already engaged in two conflicts and keeping the peace elsewhere, Iain is right that we don't have the manpower.

Too bad, as Mugabe amply deserves a similar fate to Saddam Hussein's.

Adrian Yalland said...

If the British government thinks that it should intervene (which it doesn't), it won't need to invade. All it needs is a few crack SAS types over the border from Livingstone in Zambia. Then Mugabe can be 'taken out'. There will be utter chaos as a result, but someone else will take over.

A far better way though would be for the be for other African states to do what they should have been doing years ago - taking him on! The UN is also a failure.

Colin said...

Zimbawe is a tragedy - but it is not our tragedy and we should resist the impulse to intervene. The UN should take the lead in conjunction with African nations.

The poor bloody taxpayer (PBT) doesn't work hard and shell out huge amounts to 'Gordon' and his spendthrift chums in order to prop up some backstreet African nation. It would be a total waste of resources - lives as well as money - to get involved.

Time for us to bring our troops back from Iraq and Afghaistan where the cause is noble but hopeless, and, far from providing a solution our continued presence there is now part of the problem.

And never again should we join with our US 'chums' in playing 'world policeman'. If they want to squander their citizens' lives and taxpayers' dollars in parts of the world they've never previously heard of, let alone place on a map, that's their affair, between the US government and its electorate.

I firmly believe that in the post-imperialist world, we should take care of our own domestic problems (which is what the PBT pays their hard-earned taxes for after all); and that ministers and prime minsiters should spend a lot less time strutting and grandstanding round the world pledging to 'solve' problems which are none of our concern. The only reason they do it is to appear as 'statesmen' and that it's a lot more glamourous than doing a day's work sorting out the health service, the post office, the bodged devolution, or - particularly at this time - the drains in the north of England.

Neil craig said...

That this could even be thought of shows how much the world has changed & how much colonialism, under diferent names (& with far less success) is being restablished despite all the rules of international law.

This is the same country which we refused to invade back when Ian Smith declared UDI & the place actually was our responsibility.

Anonymous said...

Zim is a classic kaffir fuck up. It always ends up in corruption and incompetence.

For those who think that ZA is a shinning example of the kaffirs getting it right should be aware that in reality it is nothing more than a time bomb waiting to go off.

Little Black Sambo said...

"Zimbawe is a tragedy - but it is not our tragedy."
It is partly our tragedy, both because of the kith & kin who are still there and because Mugabe came to power at the insistence of our Government at the time, for whom no one else was acceptable - what judges of character!

The Remittance Man said...

Mr Anon,

I'd be careful bandying the word "kaffir" around if I were you. Many people find it highly offensive and its use destroys any credibility your argument might have.

Then again posting as Anon does that pretty effectively too.

The Remittance Man said...

Sad as it may seem, this sort of opinion is pretty common across Africa. I recall reading that quite a few Sierra Leonians wanted the Brits to stay after the British Army finally brought some semblance of peace to their country.

And yes, in a theoretical way, the problem is partly ours (the former colonial powers I mean). In our rush to get the flip out of Africa we tended to cut and run without making sure the places could actually run themselves.

Add to that the fashion for installing leftist educated nutters and the results are pretty plain to see.

Whether that is sufficient grounds to justify "going back in" I don't know; even if it were wise or possible to do so.

verity said...

Those who say Zimbabwe is not our problem are right. The Zimbabweans allowed the problem to happen and they have spent years doing sod all about it.

Adrian Yelland suggested we need only send in a few SAS, but he doesn't say why the hell we should.

Surely there are some crack shots in Zim who could put a speeding bullet between the eyes of Mugabe, his huge fat wife - she must be feeling all shopped out by now anyway - and his cohorts?

Anonymous said...

With what?

verity said...

Anon 3:25 - Oh, forgive me! I'd forgotten how law-abiding the continent of Africa is and how difficult it would be to obtain illegal weaponry.

Adrian Yalland said...

Verity - you are misquoting me.

I didn't say the government 'should' but that if it wanted to invade.......etc etc.

This is an African problem and should, by and large, be resolved by Africans - primarally the states around Zimbabwe who are being destabilised by the situation.

judith said...

Africa is no longer the White Man's Burden - the Africans largely prefer to live in tribal conditions despite the natural riches they possess. If that tribal mentality leads to problems, they will have to deal with it.

We should stop treating Africans like spoiled children, who just need a bit more love and financial aid to help them grow up.

They are adults, they are tribal, they appear to like slaughtering each other and believing in magic - let them get on with it.

Praguetory said...

"Mugabe has failed to deliver an acceptable society out of that struggle - and it is time to retire and let the younger Zimbabweans find a more inclusive way to live." or even a way to live.

Anonymous said...

China is now getting more involved with Africa, they'll soon get the place working properly.

Roger Thornhill said...

Shame the Bishop could not organise a protest to show the majority of the people of Zimbabwe want Mugabe removed.

However tempting it is to ordinance him another earhole, the scumbag needs to be deposed and brought to book - no death penalty, otherwise you are no better than he is.

Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of Africa. Mugabe took the bread. Now it is just a basket.

Trumpeter Lanfried said...

The deafening noise you can hear in the distance comes from liberals, BBC journalists and Guardian readers, all chanting, "Ian Smith was right! Ian Smith was right!"

Or ... perhaps not.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it's a lovely beaded "peace basket" from Rwanda.

Madasafish said...

Personally I think Zimbabwe should be left to provide a clear example of what happens when you realy screw up.

"Pour encourager les autres".

There are enough people in the world who blame others for their mistooks.. let the Zimbabweans have no such outlet..

Humaniatrian aid in the long term just creates problems - see Gaza etc..

Reactionary Snob said...

It's South Africa's thing. If they turn off the power, Zimbabwe crumbles (although it is crumbling at the moment).

We shouldn't intervene in Zimbabwe, we can't and we won't.


Michael said...

All the talk about it being an African problem to be sorted by Africans is so much BS. The rest of the African so-called leaders are in awe of Mugabe: he does the things they would love to do.
WE created the situation, and we should ensure that Mad Bob is terminated along with his wife and cohorts. It would be good training for our covert forces, most of whom I expect would clamour for the honour to do the deed(s).

Anonymous said...

African leaders, Mbeki included, are enjoying the Zimbabwe spectacle and thumbing their noses at the impotence of the West whilst keeping their free hands firmly on their begging bowls.
A prime culprit for the present condition of Zimababwe is Peter Hain, who adored Mugabe and promoted his interests.

Also to blame is the habit of the USA and Britain to regards some terrorists as loveable freedom fighters instead of seeing them as ugly murderers and potential leaders of genocidical movements.

I am old enough to remember when Castro was the delightful liberator of Cuba when he was America's friend. Africa is knee-deep in Movements for Change or Liberation. What they want to change is the destination of the nation's wealth which they want to liberate into their own pouches.


Harry Hook said...

Invade ...oh no ...I've only just finished re-thatching the hospital roof.

You must be mad, especially as our total armed forces reserve now consists solely of Fey Turney's personal trainer and the Krankies. One solution could be to send Peter Tatchell on a seek and citizen's arrest mission, supported by a crapck team of BBC journalists.

Otherwise, my advice would be to stay well out of this mess.

The Remittance Man said...

There is a more practical reason why SA, Botswana, Zambia and so on won't intervene "dramatically" - several million potential refugees.

The SANDF and BDF could probably invade Zim successfully (I say "probably" because the SANDF isn't a patch on the former SADF). But SA and Botswana, in particular, already have huge refugee/illegal immigrant problems, 99% of which are Zimbabwean in origin. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

If things in Zim go completely pear shaped, like they would if the place was invaded, that problem will multiply tenfold. And quite frankly not even SA can handle a problem on that scale. Neither financially nor socially - the place has enough problems already.

Therefore the approach has been deliberately weak. Zim's neighbours are hoping to keep the lid on the pot long enough for Bob to shuffle off without external help and without sending the country (and the region) into crisis.

It's selfish, and bloody hard on the Zimbabweans, but if looked at from the neighbours point of view, quite understandable.

neil craig said...

1) It isn't our job.

2) It is illegal - even if it worked it would make the world a more dangerous place because it means the rules of international law & sovereignty of free nations (all free nations) is further undermined.

3) Mugabe won something as close to a democratic election as many countries (& certainly got more votes than the UK government).

4) We have no good record of making things better. We have achieved nihilism in Iraq & our rule in Kosovo depends on us being willing to allow our employees to engage in genocide & the kidnap of local schoolgirls to sell across western Europe.

5) The problem in Iraq is said to be that we hadn't planned the post conflict regime. I have seen NOBODY here or elsewhere saying how we should run the place when we have it. For reasons given in part 3 handing over to a democratic election would be out so lets hear some alternatives.

Colour Sergeant Bourne said...

Come now Private 'ook. You of all people should know that standard British Army practice when faced by 'ordes of 'ostile hafricans is to get a bunch of thespiatic types to fix bayonets, form square be'ind a pile of mealie bags and 'ave 'em sing hat the enemy. In Welsh.

Throw in a bit of classic bayonet drill and before you can say "Zulus! Farsands of 'em!" you've got youself another glorious victory and a few thousand more square miles added to 'er Majesty's Dominions Across The Seas.

Even Fey Turney's personal trainer and the Krankies should be able to manage that.

Harry Hook said...

Colour Sergeant ...Officer on Parade ...SAR!

Now please don't start that Welsh thing Colour ...this is a bleedin' English regiment mate. We've already repulsed two Zulu charges with a fine rendition of 'Agadoo', but I'm afraid the cattle bolted and we lost the native levies when we started on the Lloyd Webber stuff.

Fey Turney's trainer proved useful in plugging gaps in the defences, but I'm afraid Wee Jimmy bought it when the Zulus used him as a step ladder to get on the 'ospital roof.

Colour Sergeant Bourne said...

Steady now, lad. It's very sad about Wee Jimmy and 'is mother will be devasted, but these things 'appen when we are fightin' for Queen and Country. And the native levies were bloody useless anyway - no rhythm if you ask me.

Take 'eart. Lt Chard has just ordered Mr Bromhead to build a stage out of old ammo boxes and No2 Section are practicin' numbers from Broadway shows.

Colour Sergeant Bourne said...

'an if this is an English Regiment 'ow come Ivor Bloody Emmanuel is in the ranks?

Another bloody cock up at Personnel and Records I wouldn't doubt.

Harry Hook said...

Great news about the stage Colour ...but Private Owen and the choir have refused to put on dresses and make-up. Rank insubordination from the Welsh contingent. Mr Chard has threatened to put a woman in charge of the singing ...that should do it.

PS Was this topic about Zimbabwe?

Still, the idea of sending troops into that particular trouble spot, is definitely dafter than you or I.

Colour Sergeant Bourne said...

And if that doesn't work, I'll be forming a firing squad.

Back on topic, yes this was all about Zim and yes, imho, sending the lads in would be difficult, counter-productive and altogether rather silly.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone here ever actually been to Zimbabwe?